- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
mom3 wrote:
Scoutmaster – I don’t have much of a problem with any of the versions. To me there is plausibility in all of them, especially given the human struggle to recall an event or to accurately portray it with words. Like you I have had deep spiritual experiences but words just kind of fall flat or I leave out something.
Where my struggle comes is in the singular selection of one of the four being the cannon version. The unique variations are deeply powerful and deserve acknowledgement. I also struggle with the outgrowth that has been produced. Many read the “Vision” as a “Visitation” – and once that is stuck inside us, it is hard to separate. Our church stands by the idea that it was face to face, and that all churches are an abomination. Those are harsh words from a loving God.
As a person who believes in the more liberal God, I wish the church would throw open (the essay doesn’t count) all the first visions and build loving God narratives around them.
Indeed, Mom3, this is what led to the OP. There is no question that the average TBM believes as you state – Jesus and Heavenly Father were actually physically present in the grove. Anyone can believe whatever they want (let them worship how, where, or what they may), but upon examination of the accounts there are certainly other possibilities than that it was a physical event – very plausible other possibilities.
Levi714 wrote:I agree once you have a paradigm of how things are and then you find out something that doesn’t fit into that box of how you imagined things to be it can be a hard thing to deal with and get past and is usually very uncomfortable for people.
More than uncomfortable, this is the crux of the faith crisis.
DarkJedi wrote:I will reply first. I believe option 2 – but I can comprehend that such a scenario can also be quite “real.”
Somewhere between 1 & 2… is that even allowed?
Quote:Our church stands by the idea that . . . that all churches are an abomination.
Just to be fair and precise, I don’t think any of the top leadership believes or teaches that, as worded – and it’s not what JSH 1:19 says. I know there have been multiple talks in my lifetime, especially in the last decade or two, that have taught otherwise – sometimes quite explicitly. “Faith of Our Fathers”, by Pres. Uchtdorf, comes to mind right away.
Also, to be fair, I agree that way too many members think that’s what JSH 1:19 says and hold to that idea. If by “our church” you mean “lots of members”, I can’t disagree.
One of the things I find interesting is that despite the growth of the church some old – and possibly incorrect – ideas are very hard to overcome and are held onto by a core of the membership. Speaking to Ray’s point above, I agree, church leaders have not taught that the Catholic Church is the great and abominable church for decades. Yet, I am sure I can find in my own ward at least a couple members who still believe that. I think we can find apostles who taught that idea as recently as the 1970s (I threw my copy of Mormon Doctrine away, but the first edition did say it according to FAIR). In 1975 there were about 3.5 million church members, and Spencer W. Kimball was an active president. Undoubtedly many of those members have passed away in the intervening years, but there are still many who were children and young adults at the time, some of who are active. It is safe to say the vast majority of current members have never been taught that the Catholic Church is the great and abominable – yet I can find members who not only believe it but would teach it. The same could be said for SSA and church leaders formerly teaching it was a choice and could be “fixed.” Since this teaching was more recent, a higher percentage of members still hold to it. (My own mother-in-law, age 80, actually said it at the Thanksgiving dinner table, much to the horror of my adult/teen kids – but we were able to make a joke of it and laugh it off.) I hear a message of simplicity and inclusion of late, and I like it. Nevertheless, I think it will be a long, long time (probably after I am dead) before the majority of the membership grasps these ideals.
Kind of on a related note, I think we heard a couple messages last conference about how the church really works at the highest levels. I think there is some realization that the “follow the prophet” mantra has been so over emphasized that some people are going to panic when the prophet is incapacitated. When Pres. Benson died in 1994 there were 9 million members, again, a sizable percentage of who have since passed. I believe a minority (although a large minority) of us remember what it was like under Benson and Kimball (and even fewer for McKay) while they were not able to perform their duties – it has been 20 years since it happened, even though it was once the general reality. The church does well when it sticks to the simplicity of the restored gospel.
Quote:Ray wrote – If by “our church” you mean “lots of members”, I can’t disagree.
Yes, thank you for grabbing those words and clarifying, I did mean members. I agree that over many documents, talks, and articles are written to invite us to be more inclusive.
Quote:Dark Jedi wrote –
One of the things I find interesting is that despite the growth of the church some old – and possibly incorrect – ideas are very hard to overcome and are held onto by a core of the membership.
I agree with this. I think it’s age old repetitions and dated history. Time will be the best answer to putting these behind us.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.